APPENDIX A-7 SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TROUT … · 2.1 Saluda Project The Saluda Hydro Project...

APPENDIX A-7

SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TROUT EVALUATION AND MONITORING

PROGRAM

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 516)

TROUT EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE LOWER SALUDA RIVER

FINAL

JULY 2009

Prepared by:

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 516)


FINAL

JULY 2009

Prepared by:

i


SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

(FERC NO. 516)


FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 ............................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION

2.0 ........................................ 3 BACKGROUND OF SALUDA PROJECT AND LSR FISHERY2.1 ....................................................................................................... 3 Saluda Project2.2 ................................................................................................ 3 Fishery Resources2.3 ................................................................................................... 4 Water Resources

2.3.1 ...................................................................................... 5 Dissolved Oxygen2.3.2 .............................................................................................. 5 Temperature

2.4 .................................................. 6 Technical Work Committee Consultation History

3.0 .......................................................................... 7 PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES3.1 ................................................................................................ 7 Fishery Resources3.2 ......................................................................................................... 9 Water Quality

4.0 ............................................................................. 10 MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM4.1 ....................................................................... 10 Formation of Advisory Committee

4.1.1 .............................................. 10 Committee Members and Responsibilities4.1.2 ................................................................. 12 Advisory Committee Meetings

4.2 ......................................................................... 12 Budget and Program Resources

5.0 .......................................................................... 13 PROGRAM MONITORING METHODS5.1 .......................................................................................... 13 Sampling Techniques

5.1.1 ......................................................................... 13 Water Quality Monitoring5.1.2 ....................................................................................... 13 Flow Monitoring5.1.3 ........................................................................................ 14 Trout Sampling5.1.4 ...................................................... 15 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling5.1.5 ........................................................................ 15 Ichthyoplankton Sampling5.1.6 .................................................................................. 15 Trout Growth Study

6.0 ............................................... 17 FUNDING FOR SCDNR TROUT MOARTALITY STUDY

7.0 .................................................................................... 18 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

8.0 ........................................... 20 DECISION PROCESS FOR PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS

9.0 ...................................................................................................... 20 LITERATURE CITED

Table of Contents (Cont’d)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 7-1:

......................... 19

Example Macroinvertebrate, Trout, and Water Quality Sampling Timeline—Assumes Four Turbine Upgrades are Needed to Meet the Lower Saluda River Site-Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standard*

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Lower Saluda River Trout Growth Study

\\Wren\sc_job\455-056 Application\Settlement Agreement - Plan B\Saluda Trout Program - Final 7-24-09.doc

ii

1


SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

(FERC NO. 516)


FINAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) filed an Application for New

License on August 27, 2008, and as part, has developed a Comprehensive Relicensing

Settlement Agreement for Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement of environmental resources

at the Saluda Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 516) (Saluda Hydro or Project). The enhanced

relicensing process implemented was a multi-year cooperative effort between SCE&G and

interested stakeholders to address operational, recreational and ecological concerns associated

with hydroelectric project operations.

As part of that relicensing process, SCE&G consulted with a wide variety of stakeholders

including, state and federal resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and concerned

citizens seeking their input on important relicensing issues. As a result of that consultation and

subsequent stakeholder meetings, relicensing participants identified several issues that they

believed needed to be addressed during the relicensing process. One of the identified issues

included monitoring and potential enhancement of the Put, Grow and Take trout fishery located

in the Saluda Hydro Tailrace.

The current Put-Grow and Take program supports a cold water fishery via annual

stockings of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The trout are

stocked and managed by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Freshwater

Fisheries Section. Several efforts are currently underway by SCE&G to improve DO conditions

in the lower Saluda River (LSR) that are likely to further improve habitat for trout. Enhancement

measures consist of turbine venting, alternate operating scenarios, and implementation of

instream flow recommendations.

The Trout Evaluation And Monitoring Program for the Lower Saluda River (Program)

described herein was developed by the Instream Flow and Aquatic Habitat Technical Working

Committee (TWC) and initiated by SCE&G to monitor and assess the success of water quality

and flow enhancement measures on the trout fishery. It is a culmination of SCE&G’s work with

stakeholders to define resource goals and objectives for the lower Saluda trout fishery.

Furthermore, the Program will determine a process for evaluating changes and making

decisions that contribute to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources’ (SCDNR)

management of the fishery based on the best available information. This document explains the

goals, objectives, management, and methods of the Program, and was developed to serve as a

guidance document for future monitoring and evaluation of the tailrace trout fishery during the

new license term of the Saluda Project.

This document is organized to describe the Program in the following manner:

Section 2 Background of Saluda Project and LSR Fishery

Section 3 Program Goals and Objectives

Section 4 Management of the Program

Section 5 Program Monitoring Methods

Section 6 Implementation Schedule

Section 7 Decision Process for Program Modifications

2

3

2.0 BACKGROUND OF SALUDA PROJECT AND LSR FISHERY

2.1 Saluda Project

The Saluda Hydro Project is an existing licensed hydroelectric project, owned

and operated by SCE&G. The Project is located on the Saluda River, in the counties of

Lexington, Richland, Newberry and Saluda, South Carolina. The Project consists of an

earth fill embankment Dam (Saluda Dam) impounding a 48,000-acre reservoir (at

elevation 356.5’ NAVD881), a gated emergency spillway, a back-up Dam, a

powerhouse, five concrete intake towers and associated penstocks. Construction of the

Project was completed in 1930, and construction of the back-up dam was completed in

2005.

e fishery

and water quality resources of the LSR, including results of applicable studies.

2.2 Fishery Resources

The lower Saluda River (LSR) is approximately 10 miles in length and is

characterized by bedrock-dominated riffles, with limited gravel and cobble substrates,

and a high percentage of pool habitats. The river receives hypolimnetic (i.e., coldwater)

flows from Lake Murray via the Saluda Hydro Project. This cold water has created the

opportunity for the SCDNR to establish a successful Put, Grow and Take trout fishery for

brown trout and rainbow trout. The following sections summarize features of th

The LSR fishery is unique in that it provides fishing opportunities for both resident

warmwater species, as well as stocked coldwater species (trout). As mentioned

previously, the LSR currently supports a tailrace trout fishery for rainbow and brown trout

that is managed by the SCDNR as a Put, Grow and Take fishery. Trout are not native to

the LSR, and the fishery is maintained through stocking of sub-adult rainbow and brown

trout. Typically, the SCDNR stocking program runs from early December until mid-April.

The total number of trout stocked annually typically averages around 30,000 and are

produced at the Walhalla State Fish Hatchery. This management approach, which has

1 Unless otherwise noted, all elevation references in this document are given in North American Vertical Datum 1988

(NAVD 88); conversion to traditional plant datum (PD) requires the addition of 1.50 feet.

been employed since the 1960’s, is appropriate where trout habitat can provide the

acceptable growth and survival of enough sub-adult trout to support a fishery (D.

Christie, SCDNR, Pers. Comm.). Similarly, the LSR is classified by the South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) for regulatory purposes as

Put, Grow, and Take Trout Waters, which are defined as freshwaters suitable for

supporting the growth of stocked trout populations and a balanced, indigenous aquatic

ommunity of fauna and flora (SCDHEC, 2004).

. Disparity between study results suggests significant annual

variability in carryover.

2.3 Water Resources

c

A trout growth study conducted in 2003 in support of establishment of a site-

specific DO standard for the LSR found that growth of trout in the LSR exceeds many

other southeastern tailwaters (0.7 percent weight gain per day, 0.67 inches per month)

(Kleinschmidt et al., 2003). Further, the study found that 74 of 441 brown and rainbow

trout collected during 2003 were greater than 16 inches in length, suggesting a

significant number of carryovers from previous stocking years. The study was

conducted during a time period when near run of river flow release were being

maintained to hold the lake pool elevations constant during dam remediation. The study

concluded that the high growth rates and large number of carryovers observed in 2003

could potentially be attributed to higher DO levels since the inception of SCE&G’s

turbine venting program (Kleinschmidt et al. 2003). Conversely, a recent study begun by

SCDNR to evaluate the annual mortality of the stocked trout in the LSR documented

significantly less carryover of trout during the spring and summer of 2007 (H. Beard,

SCDNR, Pers. Comm.)

Broad River. Results of this study and other water quality data are

summarized below.

SCE&G began monitoring DO and temperature in the Saluda Project turbine

releases in 1989 and continues the effort to the present day. Most recently, SCE&G

conducted a study from 2000 to 2006 to characterize water resources by collecting

baseline water quality data in the Saluda Tailrace extending downstream to the

confluence with the

4

2.3.1 Dissolved Oxygen

The LSR occasionally suffers from short periods of low DO during high

flow or when the pool level of Lake Murray is drawn down for special purposes.

Characteristics of the project reservoir, namely the relatively high water retention

time and considerable depth of Lake Murray, coupled with regional climate

conditions, results in seasonal thermal stratification of the lake and an associated

decrease in DO in the lower water column. The problem is further exacerbated

by watershed factors such as high nutrient loading, particularly from point

discharges of phosphorus. High nutrient inputs to Lake Murray leads to an

increase in the biological oxygen demand, especially during periods of high

runoff (high flow), and consequent depletion of DO from the water column.

In 1999, to address issues associated with low DO of Project discharges,

SCE&G installed an aeration system. This aeration system, which along with

modified operational patterns, has since improved water quality of releases from

Saluda Hydro. Currently, Project discharges of low DO waters to the LSR are

infrequent. For example, during the period from 1989-1998 (prior to aeration),

the median DO concentration in Project release during the late summer and early

fall months was only 2.7 mg/L and exceeded the daily DO standard of 5.0 mg/L

only approximately 19% of the time based on USGS water quality monitoring

data. By contrast, USGS water quality monitoring data from 2000 to 2008 (since

aeration) indicate that DO levels have been above the daily DO standard of 5.0

mg/L 96 percent of the time, with a daily median of 7.2 mg/L. It should be noted

that no daily averages of less than 5.0 mg/L have occurred since 2007.

2.3.2 Temperature

According to the 2000-2008 USGS water quality monitoring data, average

daily water temperature throughout the late winter, spring, and early summer

months (February – July) in the LSR downstream of the dam ranges from 7.5 to

18.5º C. Specifically, during the spring and early summer months (March – June)

average water temperature typically remains between 8.3º C and 17º C. As the

summer progresses, water temperatures rise and are at their highest, generally

around 18º C, between mid-September and early November. During the 2000-

5

2008 USGS water quality monitoring data, water temperatures never exceeded

the lethal limit for trout of 25°C at any of the monitored trout habitat sites.

2.4 Technical Work Committee Consultation History

In comments to the Initial Consultation Document, the Saluda River Chapter of

Trout Unlimited (TU) requested that SCE&G evaluate the potential for

establishment of a self-sustaining trout fishery on the LSR downstream of the

Project. TU later clarified their request, stating they were interested in

evaluating any potential for natural trout reproduction (not just a level sufficient

for a self-sustaining population). Under direction of the Instream Flow/Aquatic

Habitat Technical Working Committee (TWC), SCE&G subsequently drafted a

technical white paper summarizing the spawning requirements of the two trout

species currently stocked in the lower Saluda (rainbow and brown trout) and

comparing those spawning preferences to habitat conditions in the lower Saluda

River (Kleinschmidt, 2007). Adult, juvenile and spawning rainbow trout and adult

and juvenile brown trout were also included as target species in the Lower

Saluda River Instream Flow Study (Kleinschmidt, 2008), which evaluated the

influence of variance flow releases on these species and lifestages.

Later consultation within the TWC identified the need for a trout monitoring

program to evaluate the improvements provided by the proposed instream flow

regime and improved water quality on the LSR trout fishery during a the term of a

new FERC license. The Trout Evaluation and Monitoring Program (Program)

contained herein was subsequently developed under direction of the TWC, which

included representatives from TU, SCDNR, USFWS and other interested

stakeholders. The Program was developed cooperatively with resource

agencies, TU and other interested stakeholders through review at numerous

meetings of the TWC and Fish and Wildlife RCG, correspondence of which was

filed with the Saluda Final License Application and corresponding additional

information filed with the FERC.

6

7

3.0 PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals and objectives of the Trout Evaluation And Monitoring Program for the LSR

were developed using a consensus-based approach during stakeholder discussions by the

Instream Flow and Aquatic Habitat TWC. Specifically, the goals and objectives are focused in

two areas the understanding of which are fundamental to effective management of the LSR

trout fishery, namely water quality and fishery resources. For each goal identified in these two

areas, there are several qualitative and quantitative objectives for measuring the progress made

towards meeting the goals. The Program goals for fishery resources and water quality, and their

associated objectives, are described below.

3.1 Fishery Resources

Goal #1 To provide data to SCDNR beneficial to their efforts to enhance the Put,

Grow, and Take trout fishery to maximize fishing opportunities for the public.

Objectives

Assess relative contribution of brown and rainbow trout, as well as native

warmwater species, to the LSR fishery community by summarizing data

in standard community-level metrics, such as species diversity, richness,

relative abundance, trophic levels, presence and distribution of key

species, etc.

Document and assess qualitative changes in trout habitat, including food

resources (benthic macroinvertebrates) and water quality factors,

resulting from flow modifications and DO enhancements.

Success Criteria

Note to readers : to be developed within the Advisory Committee

(Committee or AC)

Goal #2 To investigate reproductive successes of trout to augment stocked fishery.

Objectives

Document recruitment of young-of-year trout within the LSR

Document trout eggs or larval life-stages in the LSR

Success Criteria

Note to readers: to be developed within the AC

Goal #3 Evaluate the potential for a naturally reproducing trout population as a

SCDNR management goal.

Objectives

Advisory Committee to conduct annual review and assessment of water

quality, IFIM, and biological data. Committee to issue a report of findings

and assessment of progress towards goals.

Success Criteria


Goal #4 Determine growth rates of adult trout after implementing new instream flow

regimes.

Objectives

Conduct a trout growth study following completion of sampling as outlined

in the Lower Saluda River Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and

Enhancement Program. This will occur no sooner than year 7 after

issuance of the new license. The study will document trout growth and be

consistent with the study conducted in 2003 during the development of

the LSR site specific DO standard. SCE&G will coordinate the study with

the SCDNR and their trout production facilities. Should extended adverse

8

meteorlogical or hydrologic conditions (i.e. persistent drought, low flows,

etc.) or other extenuating circumstances occur during the years prior to

implementation of the growth study, the study may be delayed after

consultation with the AC.

Success Criteria


3.2 Water Quality

Goal #5 To release water from the Saluda Project that meets, to the extent possible,

applicable State Water Quality Standards.

Objective

Collect water quality data in the LSR year-round throughout completion of

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and Enhancement Program to

capture conditions during all seasons and for wet and dry years.

Success Criteria


9

10

4.0 MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM

The Instream Flow and Aquatic Habitat TWC has developed this Trout Evaluation and

Monitoring Program for the LSR during the relicensing process for inclusion in the FERC license

application and eventual incorporation into the new Saluda Project License. SCE&G is

ultimately responsible for collection and analysis of Program data; however, an Advisory

Committee (Committee or AC) will be convened, as described below, and it is anticipated and

desired that Committee members will actively participate in all facets of the Program.

4.1 Formation of Advisory Committee

To help develop and oversee implementation of the Program, a Committee will

be created. Member organizations and their responsibilities, as well as the approved

dispute resolution procedures, are described below.

4.1.1 Committee Members and Responsibilities

The Committee will be comprised of representatives from SCE&G,

SCDHEC, SCDNR, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Trout

Unlimited (TU), and other interested Stakeholders. With the exception of DHEC,

members of the Advisory Committee must be signatories to the CRSA. Each

entity will have the opportunity to select its own representation to the Committee.

SCE&G (or their designee) will serve as chairperson of the Committee and be

responsible for organizing meetings and distributing documents to committee

members.

The Committee will ultimately be responsible for guiding the decision

making processes specified in the Program. It is anticipated that the Committee

will be comprised of many members of the TWC responsible for development of

this Program. The Committee’s responsibilities may include, but are not limited to

the following:

Collection and evaluation of baseline information and evaluation of

study plans;

Providing overall guidance and decision making for the Program

process;

Evaluating other study (i.e., existing) information or information

which becomes available during the time period of evaluations;

Establishing and documenting the goals and objectives of each

modification and determine the appropriate metrics for evaluative

purposes;

Keeping other stakeholders aware of information relative to

potential decisions and providing opportunities to comment prior to

decisions on modifications and provide a notification system of

Advisory Committee meetings;

Determining and considering long term impacts of operational

modifications on downstream projects and project economics

when evaluating the feasibility of implementing instream flow

modifications; and

Reviewing the annual report that provides information on the prior

year’s activities which SCE&G will file with FERC.

The Committee acknowledges the importance of allowing interested

stakeholders to review and comment on major documents, such as study results,

that may impact the evaluation and potential modification to the Project. The

Committee chairman (an SCE&G representative or designee) will distribute these

study results and make annual reports available to interested stakeholders.

Interested stakeholders can request documents in writing to the Committee

chairman. The Committee chairman will ensure that interested stakeholders

have adequate notice and review time prior to final decisions of the Committee

relative to modifications to test flows, etc. For all other documents on which

stakeholders wish to comment, the Committee will review all timely comments

and include these comments in the official record.

All information from the Committee relative to this Program, including

notification of meetings, meeting summaries, study results and final study plans

will be coordinated by SCE&G and shared with each committee member.

11

4.1.2 Advisory Committee Meetings

The Advisory Committee will establish a meeting schedule based on the

activities and deliverables in any given year. To keep all committee members

abreast of the schedule, the Advisory Committee will establish an annual

calendar that will be distributed to members, along with any notes from previous

meetings. The tentative Program schedule is provided in Section 5.2 of this plan.

4.2 Budget and Program Resources

Responsibility for implementing this Program will rest primarily with SCE&G, as

licensee for the Saluda Project. Annual budgets will be developed by SCE&G relative to

the monitoring and study costs as well as administrative costs and expenses. SCE&G

will also rely on other resources outside of its establishment including, but not limited to,

the following:

federal, state and local grants

donated services (federal and state agency involvement)

equipment (purchases and loaners)

expertise (governmental, non-governmental, private)

12

13

5.0 PROGRAM MONITORING METHODS

(Note to readers: Further refinement of Sampling Methodologies will be conducted within the AC)

5.1 Sampling Techniques

5.1.1 Water Quality Monitoring

Water Quality monitoring in the Saluda Tailrace is necessary to establish

an accurate baseline and to evaluate changes in water quality resulting from DO

enhancements and changes to project operations. Further, it will be the basis

from which to determine whether the Project is in compliance with the LSR site-

specific water quality standard (Goal #4).

Continuous water temperature and DO data will be sampled annually

using installed USGS gages located below the Project dam and near Riverbanks

Zoo (#02168504 - Saluda River Below Lake Murray Dam and #02169000 -

Saluda River Near Columbia, respectively). Data will be collected at 15 minute

intervals or as determined by the USGS equipment capabilities.

5.1.2 Flow Monitoring

Flow monitoring in the LSR is necessary to establish an accurate baseline

and to evaluate changes in instream flows as they relate to TWC recommended

flows, recreational flow releases and changes in project operations.

Continuous flow data will be collected annually using installed USGS

gages located below Saluda Hydro dam and near Riverbanks Zoo (#02168504 -

Saluda River Below Lake Murray Dam and #02169000 - Saluda River Near

Columbia, respectively). Data will be collected at 15 minute intervals or as

determined by the USGS equipment capabilities.

5.1.3 Trout Sampling

In addition to the two fish community surveys per year outlined in the

Saluda Hydro Comprehensive Relicensing Settlement Agreement (CRSA),

SCE&G will conduct additional targeted electrofishing for adult and sub-adult

trout. The purpose of this sampling will be to document carryover of trout

stocked during previous years and to evaluate other changes in the trout fishery

resulting from DO enhancements and changes to project operations. Trout

collections may also assist in documenting whether spawning in occurring in the

LSR.

Trout will be sampled in the LSR on two days during the spring months

(April/May) and two days during the fall (September-October). Exact locations to

be sampled will be determined in consultation with the Advisory Committee (See

Section 4.1 above), although the Oh Brother/Ocean Boulevard island complex

downstream of Interstate 26 has been identified as a likely location due to the

abundance and quality of habitat compared with other reaches of the LSR.

To the extent possible, sampling will be by daytime boat electrofishing,

supplemented by backpack electrofishing in habitats not accessible by boat.

Effort will be placed on adequate sampling of habitats typically utilized by adult

and sub-adult trout, such as mid-channel velocity refuges at the base of shoals

and undercut vegetated banks. Additional methodology will be developed in

consultation with the Advisory Committee.

All stunned trout will be identified to species, weighed (to nearest gram),

measured for total length, marked with a unique alphanumeric Floy-type tag and

returned to the LSR. Other pertinent information that will be collected during

electrofishing efforts will include date, time, weather conditions, sample location,

collection technique, sampling effort, water temperature, DO, and secchi disc,

etc.

14

5.1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling

Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted in accordance with

the LSR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and Enhancement Program

approved by the Freshwater Mussel/Benthic macroinvertebrate TWC.

5.1.5 Ichthyoplankton Sampling

Sampling for trout at the egg and larval stages, or ichthyoplankton

sampling, will be performed annually at two locations in the LSR: (1) Corley

Island and (2) the Ocean Boulevard/Oh Brother rapids area. Sampling will be

performed 1 time per week for a two-month period, likely March and April.

Specific sampling periods may be adjusted based on consultation with the

Advisory Committee and/or regional trout experts in an effort to ensure that

sampling occurs when water temperatures most closely match trout spawning

criteria.

Duplicate samples will be collected at each location using D-shaped or

rectangular drift net (maximum mesh size 2mm), equipped with a flowmeter.

Nets will be anchored facing upstream in sufficient flow to sample effectively and

will be deployed for a maximum of 8 hours. Samples from egg nets will be

preserved in ethyl alcohol and returned to the laboratory for identification. All

eggs collected will be examined to determine stage and all larval specimens will

be measured for standard length (0.1 mm). Larval densities (number / cm3) will

be calculated, compared by date and location, and presented in the final report.

5.1.6 Trout Growth Study

SCE&G proposes to conduct an in-situ growth study in the LSR to

determine growth rates as inputs to bioenergetics modeling of rainbow trout

consistent with studies in the LSR done in 2003. The trout growth study will be

conducted during December – May and employ tag and recapture techniques

utilized in the 2003 growth study conducted in LSR (Appendix A).

15

Annual Report Format and Summary Data Package

At the conclusion of the sampling season for each year of the Program,

SCE&G will prepare reports for the various data collection components of the

Program and consolidate them into a summary report that will be used by the

Committee to track trends in the LSR.

The annual summary report package will include summaries of the

following information:

Water quality sampling data

LSR flow data for the year

Trout carryover sampling data

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling data

Ichthyoplankton sampling data

Trout stocking data

Trout growth study results (earliest will be 7 years after issuance

of new license)

Water quality data will be summarized and displayed graphically by daily

average and instantaneous temperature and DO value. Each annual report will

include a discussion of any occurrences when water quality did not meet State

standards as well as an analysis of the influence of generation on water quality in

the Tailrace. Also, as the Program progresses, each report should include a

discussion comparing the current years data to previous years data to identify

any trends or anomalies.

Electrofishing data will be compared to the Program goals to determine

the potential and observed changes (positive or detrimental) to the trout fishery

associated with changes in project operations. Analysis of data may include, but

not be limited to, a comparison of the following metrics:

species richness/diversity

species distribution

species density

16

17

trophic shifts

young-of-year recruitment

distribution of migratory species

catch rate (average number / 300 FT² or 10 minutes of boat

shocking)

percentage of individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage or

other anomalies

Other sources of available fishery data may also be incorporated

into this analysis

Occurrence of carryover adult trout

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling data will be summarized to

determine the potential and observed changes (positive or detrimental) to trout

food sources with changes in project operations. Analysis of data may include,

but not be limited to, a comparison of the following metrics:

species richness/diversity

species distribution

species density

Ichthyoplankton sampling data will be summarized to reflect whether

reproduction of trout was documented. This data will be used to determine the

reproductive potential and success within the LSR.

6.0 FUNDING FOR SCDNR TROUT MORTALITY STUDY

SCE&G will contribute $ 30,000.00 to the SCDNR to assist in funding a trout

mortality study conducted by their agency. SCDNR will perform all aspects of the

mortality study and will provide a copy of the study plan or scope of work to SCE&G prior

to implementing the study. SCE&G will make the funds available to SCDNR in the year

the study is to be performed.

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The water quality monitoring, flow monitoring and trout sampling aspects of the Program

will be implemented concurrently with and according to the schedule outlined in the LSR Benthic

Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and Enhancement Program. The Trout Growth Study will be

implemented in the year following completion of the benthic macroinvertebrate, water quality,

and flow monitoring and the trout carryover sampling.

18

19

Table 7-1: Example Macroinvertebrate, Trout, and Water Quality Sampling Timeline—Assumes Four Turbine Upgrades are

Needed to Meet the Lower Saluda River Site-Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standard*

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Unit New License

Unit 5 Upgrade Wait Sample** Unit 3 Upgrade Wait Sample Unit 4 Upgrade Wait Sample

Uni t 1 Upgrade Wait Sample Trout Study

*This schedule assumes that only 4 units would need upgrades (Units 1, 3, 4, 5)

** Sampling would include water quality, trout (adult and ichthyoplankton) and macroinvertebrates

20

Kleinschmid

Kleinschmid

Kleinschmid

South Carolina Department of He

8.0 DECISION PROCESS FOR PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS

The Advisory Committee will evaluate the annual data and make recommendations to

SCE&G for any changes in the Program.

9.0 LITERATURE CITED

t Associates. 2008. Final Data Report: Instream Flow Final Report for Lower

Saluda River – March 2008. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & Gas. Columbia,

SC.

t Associates. 2007. Evaluation of the Potential for a Self-Sustaining Brown and

Rainbow Trout Population in the Lower Saluda River – November 2007. Prepared for

South Carolina Electric & Gas. Columbia, SC.

t Associates, Loginetics, Inc., Paladin Water Quality Consulting, and Reservoir

Environmental Management, Inc. 2003. Lower Saluda River DO Technical Study

Report. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company.

alth and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. Water

Classification & Standards (R.61-68) and Classified Waters (R.61-69). Bureau of Water,

June 25, 2004.

APPENDIX A

LOWER SALUDA RIVER TROUT GROWTH STUDY

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

SALUDA DO STANDARD PROJECT


1.0 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA

In 1986 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced the Ambient Water

Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (freshwater). This document replaced all previously

published EPA aquatic life criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO). State water quality criteria may

have the same numerical values as those in the EPA document or States may want to adjust

their criteria to reflect local environmental conditions.

Site-specific criteria are allowed by regulation and are subject to EPA review and

approval. Although no specific procedures are in place for establishing site-specific criteria for

DO in freshwater, existing guidance and practice are that EPA will approve site-specific criteria

developed using appropriate procedures. Site-specific criteria must be based upon a sound

scientific rationale in order to protect the designated use. A site-specific criterion is intended to

come closer than the national criterion to providing the intended level of protection to the aquatic

life at the site, usually by taking into account the biological and/or chemical conditions at the

site. The LSR trout growth study was the initial step in the use of the bioenergetic model to

predict a DO standard that provides a level of protection of trout growth consistent with the EPA

DO criteria.

The LSR growth study and the resultant growth model predictions are used to establish

a long-term average concentration that will adequately protect trout growth in the LSR. In

addition to the long-term average, the DO criteria also contain a short-term DO concentration

that will prevent mortality as a result of acute hypoxia. Even short-term exposure to DO levels

in the range of 1 to 2 mg/L can kill trout in a short period of time if they are not able to find local

refugia where DOs are higher. In one case, mortality of trout has been reported after 3-4 day

exposure to 2.4 mg/L at 20 C. In general, low DO is better tolerated at cooler temperatures than

at warmer temperatures. In order to avoid direct mortality due to low DO, the EPA criteria

document recommends a minimum DO of 3 mg/L, a DO concentration that is survived by

salmonids, including trout, in long-term growth studies.

A-1

Although EPA cited, and agreed with, reviews that concluded that invertebrates are

generally protected by DO levels that protect fish, there were potential exceptions that induced

EPA to recommend a minimum DO of 4 mg/L to protect sensitive species of mayflies,

caddisflies, and stoneflies that are present in some areas of the western U.S. There are no data

available on the many insect species that inhabit other habitats and regions.

In order to protect trout growth, EPA concluded that the growth attained at a constant, or

30-day running mean, DO concentration of 6.5 mg/L was adequate. The assumed level of

protection was estimated to be the threshold of effect of DO on growth. Lower mean

concentrations are adequate to protect important fishery resources, but risk slight growth

impairment (6 mg/L) or moderate growth impairment (5 mg/L). EPA concluded that reductions

in growth rate sometimes seen above 6 mg/L are usually not significant and that DO

concentrations below 4 mg/L can have severe effects on growth. Between 4 and 6 mg/L the

effect on growth is moderate to slight if the exposure is sufficiently long. It must be noted that

these findings are derived from laboratory studies in which food was surplus.

Because DO affects fish growth primarily by reducing appetite and food consumption,

growth effects are greatest when food is not limited according to the EPA criteria document. For

example, in tests with coho salmon and DOs of 3, 5 and 8 mg/L, growth effects were seen only

at food availability greater than 70% of maximum consumption and a DO of 3 mg/L. No effects

were seen at 5 mg/L. This 70% food availability is similar to that estimated from the LSR growth

study.

The most “natural” DO study included in the EPA criteria document was a test conducted

in laboratory streams in which coho salmon fed on insects produced in the streams (9.5-15.5 C).

At high growth rates (0.04 to 0.05 g/g/d) dissolved oxygen levels below 5 mg/L reduced growth,

but at lower growth rates (0 to 0.02 g/g/d) no effects were seen at concentrations down to 3

mg/L. These lower growth rates are similar to those observed in the LSR. Although these

studies were not conducted with rainbow trout, there is a general similarity in growth response

to DO in all tested salmonid species and these results are probably representative of rainbow

trout as well.

Perhaps the most critical issue identified in the EPA criteria document was the

application of data from tests with constant DO exposure levels to natural situations in which DO

A-2

may fluctuate significantly. They concluded that existing data allowed for a tentative theoretical

dosing model for fluctuating DO as applied to fish growth if daily average DO was calculated

using as a maximum value the threshold concentration below which growth effects are observed

under constant exposure conditions.

The publication of several fish bioenergetic model papers occurred almost

simultaneously with the publication of the EPA criteria document for DO (Cuenco et al., 1985 a,

b, c). It was immediately evident that the fish growth analysis performed for the EPA DO criteria

document (JRB Associates, 1984) provided the DO-food consumption link that would enable a

similar modeling approach to be used for generating growth-effect predictions for natural

conditions with cycling DO. Consequently, EPA and TVA entered into a cooperative agreement

to develop and test a fish growth model using DO-growth effect data and the other bioenergetic

parameters common to established fish growth models. The EPA-TVA model also utilized

many physiological parameters from another bioenergetics model developed by the University

of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program (Hewett and Johnson, 1991). The resultant model (Shiao et

al., 1993) forms the basis for the LSR growth study and the LSR site-specific DO criteria

proposal. The 1993 model has been updated with data of better precision for rainbow trout

respiration and food consumption relationships with temperature (From and Rasmussen, 1984)

and with additional analysis of the rainbow trout growth studies from the EPA criteria document

(Spoor, 1981).

This modeling approach provides a tool to address what EPA termed a most critical and

poorly documented aspect of the dissolved oxygen criterion which is the acceptable minimum

DO under cycles of varying periodicity.

2.0 LOWER SALUDA RIVER TROUT GROWTH STUDY

Prediction of trout growth in the LSR requires adequate knowledge of three key

parameters: temperature, DO concentration, and food availability to trout. In-stream monitoring

of temperature and DO, coupled with turbine intake DO, a turbine aeration model, and a

tailwater water quality model, provided very good data and estimates of the actual temperature

and DO to which trout are exposed. Food availability can be estimated by measuring fish

growth, determining the temperature and DO during the period that growth was measured, and

using the FISH bioenergetics model to estimate food consumption (availability). During the

A-3

period of this growth study DO was sufficiently high that there was no significant effect of DO.

Therefore, food consumption and growth were determined almost exclusively by temperature

and food availability.

The growth study was conducted to closely simulate the typical pattern of rainbow trout

release into the put, grow, and take trout fishery in the LSR. This pattern is characterized by

periodic releases of catchable trout (8-10 inches) at several locations along the LSR.

The growth study began with the tagging of approximately 15,000 rainbow trout obtained

from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Walhalla Fish Hatchery. The tagging

efforts were divided into four nearly equal monthly batches beginning in November and

concluding in February. The November batch of rainbow trout contained 3000 individuals while

the remaining 3 batches contained approximately 4000 individuals.

Each monthly batch of rainbow trout (201.4 ± 49.7 mm total length, 136 ± 36.7 g; mean ±

SD) was tagged with sequentially numbered, large format, soft Alphanumeric Visible Implant

Elastomer (VI-alpha) tags produced by Northwest Marine Technology Inc. To conduct the

tagging exercise, fish were crowded in a raceway and 10 - 20 individuals were transferred to 50

– L aerated holding containers containing an anesthetic (~ 90 mg/L MS 222). Once fish were

anesthetized, each rainbow trout received one visible implant tag, injected using a syringe-like

tag applicator designed and supplied by the manufacturer just below the surface of the clear

adipose postorbital eye tissue. The fish were then returned to a separate raceway and held for

a minimum of 21 days as required by federal regulation for drug clearance as mandated by the

Food and Drug Administration. During the holding period, fish were maintained in a flow-

through raceway system at 4 – 12 C.

After the 21 day waiting period, all fish tagged for that month were individually weighted

and measured {Total length (mm) and wet weight (g)} and the tag code recorded for each fish.

All fish were left unfed two days prior to weighing and measuring. Each monthly batch of

tagged fish were divided up into 1000 fish sub-units, with each sub-group designated for release

at one of the four release locations. The December plantings were divided into 4 lots, one 300

batch (Lake Murray Dam), one 700 fish grouping (Saluda Shoals) and 2 1000 fish batches

(Allied Signal and Quail Hollow) All other monthly stockings contained relatively equal stockings

of 1000 (less tag loss). Monthly tagging numbers and tag retention rates appear in Table B1.

A-4

Trout were planted in four discreet releases, one each in December 2002, and in

January, February and March of 2003. Release sites were three that are routinely used for the

fishery (Saluda Shoals Park, Allied Signal, and Quail Hollow) plus an additional upstream site

just below Lake Murray dam (Figure B-1).

The tagged fish arrived in hatchery trucks each outfitted with multiple cells to keep fish

separated. To accomplish this, fish were taken from numbered raceways at the hatchery with

each raceway containing known tagged fish. Fish were then placed in each of the designated

cells for transport and release to the LSR. For the helicopter stocking, the fish were placed in

the helicopter bucket and the pilot was given specific directions where to place the fish in the

LSR. The remaining stockings were conducted via truck with each driver having a designated

stocking location to release fish based on a pre-arranged raceway numbered matrix. During the

January stocking, the lock on the access gate to Quail Hollow had been changed which required

the driver to stock the fish at Allied Signal. To compensate and provide an even distribution of

fish at all stocking locations, two 1000 batches of fish were released in the Quail Hollow area

during February stocking event.

To determine trout growth, recovery of tagged trout was carried out by obtaining trout

from the LSR by electrofishing as well as by obtaining weight and length data of freshly caught

trout in the LSR sports fishery. Fish were collected from the LSR from April thru June using

primarily boat electrofishing means. The sampling area extended from the base of Lake Murray

Dam to the I -26 bridge (Figure B-1). While no sampling was conducted below the I-26 Bridge,

there were anecdotal reports of tagged fish being caught near Riverbanks Zoo, approximately 1

mile downstream. Boat electrofishing was conducted using a 16 foot aluminum boat outfitted

with a generator, Smith-Root model VII-A Electrofisher, and anode and cathode umbrella

droppers. Pulsed DC current was placed in the water and output amperage was adjusted to

maximize electric current in the water. Voltage was regulated in attempts to maintain

approximately 5 amps. During electrofishing sampling, electric current was directed to all

microhabitats (shoals, ruffle run complexes and rock outcroppings) throughout the LSR.

Electrofishing effort was typically expended over a two and three day period. All trout captured

were placed in 100 L aerated containers. Fish were then evaluated to determine if they were

tagged. Those fish that were tagged individual length and weight, data was collected, along

with the corresponding tag color and number and recorded on field data sheets. Fish were then

A-5

released back to the LSR in the general location of capture. Additionally untagged trout were

collected and those individuals were enumerated and length data obtained.

2.1 Growth Results

A total of 111 tagged trout were collected, weighed and measured during April,

May and June. The growth data were analyzed to determine if the data were sufficiently

homogeneous to allow use of the entire data set for estimation of food availability in the

LSR. There were several factors that might have caused growth (and food availability

estimates) to be significantly different for one or more subsets of fish in the growth study.

These factors included:

Release site

Release date

Recapture site

Size at release

Condition at release

Condition at recapture

Direction of movement after release

Distance of movement after release

Time between release and recapture

Because growth was primarily influenced by temperature and food availability

during the study period (DO was always high), any difference in these factors related to

tailwater location or date could have caused differences in growth rate. In addition, size

and condition of the fish might be related to fitness to the tailwater environment,

including adaptability to feeding, as well as finding and competing for most-suitable

habitat. Obviously, any factors that might tend to selectively crop fish through predation,

movement out of the study area, or susceptibility to angler harvest could influence the

study result. However, as these factors are always present, their exclusion, even if

possible, would make the study less representative of the actual conditions for the trout

remaining in the system.

A-6

2.2 Initial Data Analysis

A summary of the data collected for each recaptured fish from the growth study is

provided in Table 2. The weight at release and recapture of the 111 fish used for the

growth analysis is shown in Figure B-2. It is immediately evident that there was a large

range in fish weight both at release and recapture. The range of trout weight at release

is typical, as trout will feed and grow at different rates even in a hatchery environment

where feeding is regular. The same phenomenon occurs in nature, as individual fish

become more-or-less adapted to the natural habitat and more-or-less dominant in

retaining better habitat niches.

2.3 Release Site and Date

The initial analysis of growth rate by release site and release date indicated that

differences in median growth raters were relatively small (Table B-3). Because of

periodic access problems, only 14 of the 16 potential release combinations (4 sites x 4

dates) were possible. The number of fish recaptures represented in these 14

combinations ranged from 1 to 14, with several releases being represented by less than

a half-dozen individuals.

Comparing individual trout growth rates as a function of release site and release

date indicated that only two of fourteen release groups had growth rates that appeared

to be lower than the norm for the other release groups (Figures B-2a and 2b). The two

groups with lower growth rates were the December group released at Quail Hollow and

the March group released at Allied Signal. However, these two groups were

represented by only four and one fish, respectively. With the large range of growth rates

represented within each of the other groups and the fact that most groups in the March

release had fish which lost weight following release, there was no reason to remove

these two groups (five fish) from the overall data set of 111 trout.

2.4 Recapture Site

It is not possible to determine where an individual fish resided between the time

of release and the time of recapture. For those fish that were recaptured near the

release site it might be concluded that there was not a significant movement upstream or

A-7

downstream from the point of release. Other fish that were recaptured farther from the

release site may or may not have moved rapidly to the vicinity of the point of recapture.

Given the pool-like nature of much of the study area, it is possible that many of the

released trout moved freely up and down long stretches of the LSR and established no

small-scale area of residency. On the assumption that recapture site might indicate the

primary area of residency following release, the growth rate data were analyzed to see if

there was a relationship between growth rate and recapture site (Figure B-3).

Growth rates were highly variable regardless of recapture site. Almost twice as

many fish were recaptured between Allied Signal and Saluda Shoals than in the

upstream or downstream sections. Median growth rates were slightly higher in this

intermediate stretch (0.75 percent per day) as compared with upstream (0.68 percent

per day) and downstream (0.65 percent per day). Given the highly variable growth

rates, these relatively small differences were not seen as significant to the modeling

effort. Fish from the Saluda Shoals releases were the most common at all recapture

sites below RM 8 (and below the Saluda Shoals release site, ca. RM 8.3), and fish from

the release immediately below the dam were most common above RM 8 (Figure B-4).

The effect of movement from the site of release was analyzed separately from the site of

recapture.

2.5 Growth and Movement

All four release times were characterized by fish moving both up- and down-

stream from the release sites. In general, more fish moved downstream than upstream,

with median movement ranging from 0.3 to 1.2 miles downstream. Although the pattern

of movement differed slightly among the four release dates (Figure B-5) only fish from

the January releases appeared to differ in any noticeable way from the overall pattern.

This exception is perhaps more noteworthy because no fish were released at Quail

Hollow during January, and fish that moved downstream from Quail Hollow were outside

of the recapture area. In fact, only trout that were released at the two intermediate sites,

Saluda Shoals and Allied Signal, could be sampled both above and below the release

site. The Quail Hollow released fish were not sampled below the site of release and the

fish released just below the dam were obviously limited to the immediate area of the

release or movement downstream.

A-8

Analysis of fish movement for the two intermediate release sites indicated that

both the Saluda Shoals and Allied Signal fish from the December release tended to

move downstream (Figure B-6). [Note that in this and other figures some data points are

identical and are superimposed in the figures, thus, the number of points visible may not

equal the number of data points represented (n).] Later releases at Saluda Shoals

followed this pattern, but the indications are that the Allied Signal fish may have moved

upstream more frequently following the January and March releases (there was no

February release at that site). The release of fish immediately below the dam may have

populated the upstream section to the extent that competitive pressure produced the net

downstream movement of Saluda Shoals fish. Of course, this movement pattern may

also be a direct response to physical habitat characteristics.

Although the movement of trout released at the dam was limited to essentially

staying put or moving downstream, and the Quail Hollow releases were only sampled at

and above the release site, the analysis of this data is of interest (Figure B-7). The Lake

Murray dam releases routinely had a median movement of 0.8 miles downstream.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of all the movement data was the relatively rapid

upstream migration of several fish from the March release at Quail Hollow. Although

median movement was still less than one mile upstream, at least four fish moved 3-5

miles upstream in the period between release and sampling.

Given the wide range of dispersal seen among the fish (up to 5 miles up and

downstream from the release site) the potential effect of this movement on growth was

considered potentially important. As shown in Figure B-8, there was essentially no

pattern seen in the growth data when distance and direction of post-release movement

was included as a variable. A similar analysis broken down by release site and release

date showed no appreciable pattern (Figures B-9-12). Figure B-13 shows the analysis

of the relationship between time in the LSR after release and distance traveled between

release and recapture. In general, there was no relationship between distance traveled

and the time between release and recapture.

A-9

2.6 Size at Release and Growth Rate

The maximum growth rate of fish is in part dependent upon fish size, with smaller

fish capable of higher food consumption rates and higher growth rates than larger fish.

Hatchery feeding practices have routinely used size as a determinant of how much feed

to provide trout (e.g., Leitritz, 1972: 2-inch fish 4x and 5-inch fish 2x the food fed 9-inch

fish). The growth rate observed for fish in the LSR study indicated a weak relationship to

size at release, with most growth rates >1 percent per day occurring in trout that were

<150 grams at release (Figure B-14). Given the wide range of growth rates for fish of

any particular size and the growth model expression of food availability as a percent of

maximum consumption potential rather than absolute amounts of food consumed, there

was no compelling need to consider size in determining food availability for the growth

model.

2.7 Condition Factor and Growth Rate

Trout of any length may be judged as to their general condition by overall

appearance and described as skinny, solid, plump, fat, etc. A quantitative term that

describes the length and weight relationship is the “condition factor.” The condition factor

(c.f.) is expressed as:

c.f. = (W x 100) / (L)3

where: W = weight in grams and L = length in cm.

A condition factor of 1.0 may be used as a general guide with factors <1

representing less than optimal condition in trout and those >1 representing well-fed trout.

Trout with lower initial condition factors tended to grow at a faster rate than those

with higher initial condition factors (Figure B-15). This is an expected finding under

circumstances where hatchery conditions can cause a wide spread in condition factor

and where field conditions allow dispersal of fish into areas of adequate food. The

overall range in initial condition factors (ca. 0.8-1.8 in this study) is not unusual in

crowded fish culture units without extensive and frequent grading and separation of fish

sizes. Once released into the LSR the fish were able to disperse and feed more

A-10

uniformly. This tends to allow the skinny fish to bulk up and the fatter fish to become

more trim, resulting in the growth rate relationship seen in Figure B-15. This

phenomenon is probably typical of the LSR put, grow, and take trout fishery and does

not complicate the use of this growth study with the bioenergetic growth model.

The change in condition factor is illustrated in Figure B-16. In general, trout with

initial condition factors >1.2 became more trim and those with initial condition factors

<1.0 became more robust. The central tendency in the population was to develop a

condition factor of about 1.1. This same trend was evident for trout recaptured from

each of the release periods (Figures B-17a and b). This trend towards uniformity of

condition factor is clearly evident in the decreasing variability in the length-weight

relationships between release and recapture (Figure B-18) where r2 values improved

from 0.61 to 0.87 during residency in the LSR. The trend to greater uniformity in

condition simplifies the application of the bioenergetic growth model.

Because growth was related to condition factor, the data were analyzed to see if

there was any relationship between post-release movement in the LSR and the condition

factor of the trout at time of release (Figure B-19). There was no effect of condition

factor on the movement of trout following release.

A final analysis of the data was to determine if there was any relationship

between growth rate and the time between release and recapture. Except for an

apparently reduced growth rate for fish captured shortly after the March release, growth

was essentially independent of residence time. The slightly reduced growth seen in the

early recapture of the March release is probably attributable to a period of recovery from

handling procedures inherent in capture, transport and release of fish in the planting

process. Some period of time is also probably needed for the fish to adapt to feeding in

nature as opposed to feeding under hatchery conditions. It is likely that all four release

periods underwent the same handling stress and adaptation process, but the December-

February releases experienced that pattern long before the initial recapture effort in April

2003.

A-11

2.8 LSR Trout Fishery Information

Additional information collected during the growth study revealed significant

numbers of rainbow and brown trout that appear to be carryovers from previous

stockings. A total of 441 tagged and untagged trout were collected from the LSR, with

253 rainbow and 188 brown trout comprising the total catch.

Of the 441 rainbow and brown trout collected, 74 exceeded 16 inches in length,

or nearly one in every six fish. The largest rainbow and brown trout collected during

these surveys were 22 and 24 inches, respectively, with all fish appearing robust and

healthy. Further examination of the data indicates that trout do appear to carryover from

annual stockings. Figure B-21 illustrates that at a minimum two distinct age classes of

fish were collected in the LSR during the study. However, without otolith examination it

is not readily possible to determine what year classes these individuals represent. One

likely contributor to this observed carryover is likely is the higher DO levels maintained in

the LSR since the inception of SCE&G’s turbine venting program than those DO levels

historically observed.

3.0 SUMMARY

A detailed analysis of growth patterns and relationships with potentially significant

variables relating to the LSR sites, release dates, and fish size indicated that there were no

factors requiring either data deletion or subdivision prior to the use of observed growth rates for

calculating food availability. Consequently growth rate data from all 111 recaptured trout were

used to calibrate the bioenergetics model for the LSR.

4.0 LITERATURE CITED

Cuenco, M., R. Stickney and W. Grant. 1985. Fish Bioenergetics and Growth in Aquaculture

Ponds: I. Individual Fish Model Development. Ecol. Modelling, 27:169-190.


Ponds: II. Effects of Interactions among Size, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen,

Unionized Ammonia and Food on Growth of Individual Fish. Ecol. Modelling, 27:191-

206.

A-12


Ponds: III. Effects of Interspecific Competition, Stocking Rate, Stocking Size, and

Feeding Rate on Fish Productivity. Ecol. Modelling, 28:73-95.

From J., and G. Rasmussen. 1984. A Growth Model, Gastric Evacuation, and Body

Composition in Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson, 1836. Dana, 3:61-139.

Hewett, S. and B. Johnson. 1991. Fish Bioenergetics 2. Upgrade of a generalized bioenergetics

model of fish growth for microcomputers. WIS-SG-91-250. University of Wisconsin,

Madison.

JRB Associates. 1984. Analysis of Data Relating Dissolved Oxygen and Fish Growth. EPA

Contract No. 68-01-6388, WA #3. JRB Assoc., McLean Va.

Leitritz, E. 1972. Trout and Salmon Culture (Hatchery Methods). State of California Dept. of Fish

and Game Bulletin no. 107. 169 pp.

Shiao, M., G. Hauser, B. Yeager, and T. McDonough. 1993. Development and Testing of a Fish

Bioenergetics Model for Tailwaters. TVA, Norris, TN. 49 pp.

Spoor, W. 1981. Growth of Trout at Different Oxygen Concentrations. Preliminary Report from

USEPA, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, Minn. 9 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (freshwater). EPA 440/5-

86-003. Wash. D.C. 46 pp.

A-13

i

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA



TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA ....................................................................... 1 2.0 LOWER SALUDA RIVER TROUT GROWTH STUDY ......................................... 3

2.1 Growth Results .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Initial Data Analysis ................................................................................... 7 2.3 Release Site and Date............................................................................... 7 2.4 Recapture Site ........................................................................................... 7 2.5 Growth and Movement............................................................................... 8 2.6 Size at Release and Growth Rate............................................................ 10 2.7 Condition Factor and Growth Rate .......................................................... 10 2.8 LSR Trout Fishery Information................................................................. 12

3.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 12 4.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table B-1. Number tagged, number of survivors, survival (%), number retaining tags, and proportion (%) retaining tags of rainbow trout tagged with large format, soft VI-alpha tags and held for 25 days.

Table B-2. Data on rainbow trout recaptured and used in the Bioenergetics Model from the Lower Saluda River Growth Study April- June.

Table B-3. Median growth rate (n) for each of the fourteen combinations of release site and release date.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B-1 Fish Capture and Restock Locations Figure B-2 Weight (g) of recaptured trout at time of release and time of recapture. Figure B-2a. Growth rate by release site for December and January releases. Figure B-2b. Growth rate of trout by release site for the February and March releases. Figure B-3. Growth rate is shown as a function of recapture location by river mile. Figure B-4. Recapture location (RM) and site of release. Figure B-5. Distance moved from release site for each release date. Figure B-6. Movement of trout by stocking date from the two intermediate release

sites.

Figure B-7. Movement of fish following release at various times at the upstream site near Lake Murray dam and at Quail Hollow.

Figure B-8. This figure shows the growth rates for all 111 fish as a function of their movement up- or down-stream following release.

Figure B-9. Analysis of growth rate as a function of post-release movement for fish released in December at the four release sites.

Figure B-10. Analysis of growth rate as a function of post-release movement for fish released in January at the three release sites.

Figure B-11. Analysis of growth rate as a function of post-release movement for fish released in February at the three release sites.

Figure B-12. Analysis of growth rate as a function of post-release movement for fish released in March at the four release sites.

Figure B-13. Relationship between days in the stream between release and capture and the distance traveled from the point of release.

Figure B-14. The growth rate of trout in the LSR showed a slight relationship with size at release.

Figure B-15. Growth rate was greater in fish with lower initial condition factors following release into the LSR.

Figure B-16. The condition of trout in the LSR became much more uniform than that seen at the time of release.

Figure B-17a. Condition factor change for December and January releases. Figure B-17b. Condition factor change for January and March releases. Figure B-18. Illustrating the increased uniformity of trout condition following release into

the LSR. Figure B-19. There was no significant effect of initial condition factor on the tendency of

fish to move up- or down-stream following release. Figure B-20. There was no appreciable effect of residency duration on the growth of

fish in the LSR. Figure B-21 Length Frequency Distribution of all brown and rainbow trout collected

from the Lower Saluda River, April – June 2003.

455-015-97-01 Z:\455-015 Saluda River DO Standard\Report\Appendix B - EPA Criteria and Lower Saluda Trout Growth

Study\APPENDIX B Lower Saluda Growth Study.doc

ii

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.



AUGUST 2003

Prepared by:

Paladin Water Quality Consulting

Kleinschmidt Associates Energy and Water Resource Consultants

Table B-1: Number tagged, number of survivors, survival (%), number retaining tags, and proportion (%) retaining tags of rainbow trout tagged with large format, soft VI-alpha tags and held for 25 days

TAG DATE

TAGGED (N)

SURVIVORS (N)

SURVIVAL (%)

NUMBER RELEASED

(N)

RETENTION (%)

12/8/02 3000 2975 99.2 2405 80.8

1/6/03 4000 3780 94.5 2979 78.8

1/20/03 4400 4281 97.3 3331 77.8

2/13/03 4000 3251 81.3 3089 95.0

Total 15400 14287 92.8 11804 82.6

Data on rainbow trout recaptured and used in the Bioenergetics Model from the Lower Saluda River Growth Study April- June

Table B-2:

Stocked Recaptured Stock Recapture

d Location

Tag Tag Total Total Weight Weight Recaptured Location on Figure

B-1

Location Location on

Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured

Color Number Length (mm)

Length (mm)

(g) (g) (blue except where noted)

Stocked (Red unless noted

Date Date

1 yellow C27 242 307 179 353 Sandy Beach, way point 106

3 Saluda Shoals Park

2 12/17/2002

4/2/2003

2 yellow D55 217 230 157 171 Sandy Beach, way point 106


2 12/17/2002

4/2/2003

3 yellow 22D 233 290 164 299 Corley Island shoal


2 12/17/2002

4/3/2003

4 yellow X26 253 298 216 302 downstream of I-20 at house

10 Quail Hollow 4 12/17/2002

4/3/2003

5 yellow R73 261 324 221 438 tailrace, near spillway inflow

1 Lake Murray Dam 1 12/17/2002

4/28/2003

6 yellow 50E 245 315 197 347 above Sandy Beach (near

shoal)


2 12/17/2002

4/28/2003

7 yellow D42 233 290 156 273 Sandy Beach 3 Saluda Shoals Park

2 12/17/2002

4/28/2003

8 yellow L97 243 320 165 379 Upstream of Rawls Creek at

shoal


2 12/17/2002

4/28/2003

9 yellow R72 245 325 156 350 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Allied Signal 3 12/17/2002

5/1/2003

10 yellow K20 244 315 143 328 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 unknown n/a 12/17/2002

5/1/2003

11 yellow J59 265 348 234 501 downstream of I-20 bridge


5/1/2003

12 yellow L41 234 278 204 294 downstream of I-20 bridge


2 12/17/2002

5/1/2003

13 yellow G73 239 305 210 375 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Quail Hollow 4 12/17/2002

5/1/2003

Stocked Recaptured Stock Recaptured

Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

14 yellow I38 208 275 117 211 downstream of I-20 bridge


2 12/17/2002

5/1/2003

15 yellow 09D 239 302 168 309 downstream of I-20 bridge


5/1/2003

16 yellow 54E 250 335 194 461 Corley Island shoal


5/1/2003

17 yellow 35C 277 345 204 472 Corley Island shoal


2 12/17/2002

5/1/2003

18 yellow O7E 239 282 113 255 upstream of Quail Hollow, mile 4+

12 Saluda Shoals 2 12/17/2002

5/20/2003

19 yellow X04 216 281 197 236.0 upstream of Quail Hollow, mile 4+

12 Quail Hollow 4 12/17/2002

5/20/2003

20 yellow B97 245 311 209 283 upstream of Quail Hollow, mile 4+

12 Quail Hollow 4 12/17/2002

5/20/2003

21 yellow 56D 254 333 179 377 asphalt plant, mile 4+


5/20/2003

22 yellow J22 245 336 166 361 tailrace boat ramp & upstream

1 (red) Lake Murray Dam 1 12/17/2002

6/2/2003

23 yellow L92 224 334 165 415 Corley Island shoal

7 Saluda Shoals 2 12/17/2002

6/2/2003

24 red A96 240 295 185 307 Sandy Beach, way point 106

3 Lake Murray Dam 1 1/7/2003 4/2/2003

25 red S22 220 266 145 222 Sandy Beach, way point 106

3 Lake Murray Dam 1 1/7/2003 4/2/2003

26 red 46B 212 271 102 223 Sandy Beach, way point 106


2 1/8/2003 4/2/2003

27 red B84 207 258 133 206 Sandy Beach, way point 106


2 1/8/2003 4/2/2003

28 red C59 260 308 238 313 downstream of Hope Ferry

Landing


2 1/8/2003 4/2/2003


Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

29 red 64K 231 275 125 228 Corley Island shoal


2 1/8/2003 4/3/2003

30 red 50G 226 290 162 227 Corley Island shoal


2 1/8/2003 4/3/2003

31 red P13 250 285 183 252 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 4/3/2003

32 red 88L 185 279 70 243 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 4/3/2003

33 red 77D 236 275 168 227 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 4/3/2003

34 red E36 237 280 166 227 above Sandy Beach (near

shoal)

2 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 4/28/2003

35 red E17 213 282 130 240 above Sandy Beach (near

shoal)

2 Lake Murray Dam 1 1/7/2003 4/28/2003

36 red 85E 220 304 130 319 Upstream of Rawls Creek at

shoal


2 1/8/2003 4/28/2003

37 red A44 228 305 171 333 Upstream of Rawls Creek at

shoal


2 1/8/2003 4/28/2003

38 red 80M 219 271 124 230 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 4/28/2003

39 red 92I 264 315 223 339 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/1/2003

40 red P97 230 283 146 232 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/1/2003

41 red 51D 217 280 125 242 Honeywell Intake 9 Saluda Shoals Park

2 1/8/2003 5/1/2003

42 red P95 226 298 130 311 Honeywell Intake 9 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/1/2003


Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

43 red 52M 240 296 157 282 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/1/2003

44 red V97 217 284 150 272 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/1/2003

45 red 63C 228 301 155 282 Honeywell Intake 9 Saluda Shoals Park

2 1/7/2003 5/20/2003

46 red K51 223 278 112 206 Honeywell Intake 9 Lake Murray Dam 1 1/8/2003 5/20/2003 47 red P72 228 289 126 222 Honeywell Intake 9 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/20/2003 48 red 07I 255 317 235 326 Honeywell Intake 9 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/20/2003 49 red F67 224 313 168 339 asphalt plant, mile

4+ 11 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/20/2003

50 red H29 205 280 91 231 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Allied Signal 3 1/9/2003 5/20/2003

51 red 82H 221 329 141 434 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Saluda Shoals 3 1/8/2003 5/20/2003

52 red 23K 245 311 180 298 tailrace boat ramp & upstream

1 (red) Lake Murray Dam 1 1/7/2003 6/2/2003

53 red 19B 232 320 102 343 downstream of Saluda Shoals

4 Lake Murray Dam 1 1/7/2003 6/2/2003

54 red 50N 243 335 179 397 downstream of Saluda Shoals

Park

4 Saluda Shoals 2 1/8/2003 6/2/2003

55 red P41 203 289 149 264 downstream of Saluda Shoals

Park, above "Logan's Point"

5 Saluda Shoals 2 1/8/2003 6/2/2003

56 orange V09 224 258 119 194 Sandy Beach, way point 106

3 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/2/2003

57 orange I77 232 277 141 222 Sandy Beach, way point 106

3 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/2/2003


Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

58 orange D20 247 273 165 244 downstream of Hope Ferry

Landing

4 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/2/2003

59 orange Y10 233 244 153 161 Corley Island shoal


2 2/12/2003 4/3/2003

60 orange 88J 217 247 112 168 Corley Island shoal

7 Quail Hollow 4 2/13/2003 4/3/2003

61 orange N04 235 252 136 166 Corley Island shoal


2 2/12/2003 4/3/2003

62 orange 47A 247 265 145 210 Corley Island shoal


2 2/12/2003 4/3/2003

63 orange 46V 222 227 102 147 downstream of I-20 at house

10 Quail Hollow 4 2/13/2003 4/3/2003

64 orange 73V 218 254 113 185 tailrace, near spillway inflow

1 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/28/2003

65 orange G07 212 251 107 171 above Sandy Beach ("flat")

2 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/28/2003

66 orange U87 219 260 118 215 above Sandy Beach (near

shoal)

2 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/28/2003

67 orange 26V 220 252 154 179 above Sandy Beach (near

shoal)

2 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/28/2003

68 orange 90P 208 260 108 214 Upstream of Rawls Creek at

shoal

5 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 4/28/2003

69 orange 09Y 186 288 62 246 downstream of I-20 bridge

5 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 5/1/2003

70 orange Y79 249 295 146 266 downstream of I-20 bridge

10 Quail Hollow 4 2/13/2003 5/1/2003


Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

71 orange 13B 225 265 126 218 downstream of I-20 bridge


2 2/12/2003 5/1/2003

72 orange 74A 232 270 124 186 downstream of I-20 bridge

10 Quail Hollow 4 2/13/2003 5/1/2003

73 orange M37 249 264 131 208 Honeywell intake area


2 2/12/2003 5/1/2003

74 orange 18A 236 257 143 165 Honeywell intake area


2 2/12/2003 5/1/2003

75 orange 73B 224 274 131 211 Corley Island shoal

7 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 5/1/2003

76 orange R44 261 306 183 360 asphalt plant, mile 4+

11 Quail Hollow 4 2/13/2003 5/20/2003

77 orange 62P 203 264 112 193 BC Components intake

8 Saluda Shoals 2 2/12/2003 5/20/2003

78 orange J45 230 273 148 216 BC Components intake

8 Saluda Shoals 2 2/12/2003 5/20/2003

79 orange D60 203 241 106 130 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Quail Hollow 4 2/13/2003 5/20/2003

80 orange R77 216 280 100 250 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Saluda Shoals 2 2/12/2003 5/20/2003

81 orange 17C 223 282 142 239 downstream of Saluda Shoals

Park

4 Lake Murray Dam 1 2/11/2003 6/2/2003

82 green R76 267 278 234 243 Sandy Beach, way point 106

3 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 4/2/2003

83 green R79 260 258 173 165 SCE&G boat landing - tailrace,

way point 108


84 green Z71 237 279 215 243 downstream of Hope Ferry

Landing

4 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 4/2/2003


Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

85 green 22R 215 226 134 126 Corley Island shoal

7 Allied Signal 3 3/13/2003 4/3/2003

86 green 98G 220 230 140 155 Corley Island shoal


2 3/12/2003 4/3/2003

87 green L34 245 245 192 177 Corley Island shoal


2 3/12/2003 4/3/2003

88 green O00 215 270 108 220 above Sandy Beach (near

shoal)


2 3/12/2003 4/28/2003

89 green N24 242 266 176 225 Sandy Beach 3 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 4/28/2003 90 green 47G 238 265 173 203 Sandy Beach 3 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 4/28/2003 91 green 81L 236 265 148 191 Upstream of

Rawls Creek at shoal

5 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 4/28/2003

92 green O57 244 280 154 219 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/1/2003

95 green S64 280 300 255 327 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/1/2003

93 green 91Y 246 278 177 222 downstream of I-20 bridge

11 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/1/2003

94 green 37G 235 269 152 238 Honeywell Intake 9 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 5/1/2003 95 green Z21 237 285 215 301 Corley Island

shoal 7 Saluda Shoals

Park 2 3/12/2003 5/1/2003

96 green 30T 238 280 138 204 Quail Hollow, mile 3 to mile 4

12 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/20/2003

97 green H42 252 305 178 213.0 Honeywell Intake 9 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/20/2003 98 green 11C 230 272 178 204.0 Honeywell Intake 9 Saluda Shoals 2 3/12/2003 5/20/2003

100 green P34 281 326 252 366 BC Components intake

8 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/20/2003

101 green 82R 230 272 186 189 asphalt plant, mile 4+

11 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/20/2003


Location


B-1


Figure B-1

Stock Recaptured


Length (mm)



Date Date

102 green T65 216 284 167 216 upstream of I-20, ~mile 4.5

13 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 5/20/2003

103 green G41 300 334 360 372 BC Components intake

8 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 5/20/2003

104 green P89 235 285 145 286 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Saluda Shoals 2 3/12/2003 5/20/2003

105 green 09Y 225 272 155 186 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 5/20/2003

106 green 08R 210 262 134 209 Corley Island shoal, mile 7+

7 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 5/20/2003

107 green 28B 193 213 88 74 tailrace boat ramp & upstream


108 green G67 230 271 126 211.5 tailrace boat ramp & upstream


109 green 72Y 259 291 159 259.0 Sandy Beach (upstream of

Saluda Shoals Park landing)

3 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 6/2/2003

110 green E35 250 284 157 213.0 Sandy Beach (upstream of

Saluda Shoals Park landing)

3 Quail Hollow 4 3/14/2003 6/2/2003

111 green N25 233 272 146 204.0 downstream of Saluda Shoals

Park, above "Logan's Point"

5 Lake Murray Dam 1 3/11/2003 6/2/2003

Table B-3: Median growth rate (n) for each of the fourteen combinations of release site and release date. Overall median (n) growth rates are shown for each site, each date, and for all 111 recaptured trout. Growth rates are g/g/day and the overall rate of 0.0071 g/g/day is 0.71 percent weight gain per day.

DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. ALL

MONTHS

Below Dam

0.0072 (2)

0.0070 (6)

0.0095 (11)

0.0048 (13)

0.0075 (32)

Saluda Shoals

0.0077 (11)

0.0083 (12)

0.0075 (9)

0.0063 (6)

0.0076 (38)

Allied Signal

0.0078 (6)

0.0065 (14)

No release

-0.0030 (1)

0.0071 (21)

Quail Hollow

0.0030 (4)

No release

0.0095 (6)

0.0055 (10)

0.0056 (20)

All Sites 0.0071 (23)

0.0072 (32)

0.0083 (26)

0.0056 (30)

0.0071 (111)

Figure B-1: Fish Stock and Recapture Locations

Weight x Release x DateMedian (n) per Release

Date12/1/2002 1/1/2003 2/1/2003 3/1/2003 4/1/2003 5/1/2003 6/1/2003

Weig

ht (

g)

100

200

300

400

500

179(23) 148

(32)129(26)

163(30)

Figure B-2: Weight (g) of Recaptured Trout at Time of Release and Time of Recapture

Release Weights Recapture Weights

Figure B-2a: Growth Rate by Release Site for December and January Releases

Figure B-2b: Growth Rate of Trout by Release Site for the February and March Releases

Figure B-3: Growth Rate is Shown as a Function of Recapture Location by River Mile.

Release points are indicted by vertical dashed lines. From downstream to upstream these are Quail Hollow, Allied Signal, Saluda Shoals Park, and the immediate vicinity of the Lake Murray dam. No recapture efforts were made below the Quail Hollow release point (RM 3).

Figure B-4: Recapture Location (RM) and Site of Release. There was Limited

Recapture Effort Between RM 4 and 6.

Figure B-5: Distance Moved from Release Site for Each Release Date. Median

Distances are Shown on the Graph for each Release Date

Figure B-6: Movement of Trout by Stocking Date from the Two Intermediate

Release Sites where Upstream and Downstream Movement were not Limited by the Dam or by Sampling Site Limitations

Figure B-7: Movement of Fish Following Release at Various Times at the

Upstream Site Near Lake Murray Dam and at Quail Hollow

Figure B-8: This Figure Shows the Growth Rates for All 111 Fish as a Function

of Their Movement Up or Downstream Following Release

Figure B-9: Analysis of Growth Rate as a Function of Post-Release Movement

for Fish Released in December at the Four Release Sites


for Fish Released in January at the Three Release Sites


for Fish Released in February at the Three Release Sites


for Fish Released in March at the Four Release Sites

Figure B-13: Relationship Between Days in the Stream Between Release and

Capture and the Distance Traveled from the Point of Release

Figure B-14: The growth Rate of Trout in the LSR Showed a Slight Relationship

with Size at Release

Figure B-15: Growth Rate was Greater in Fish with Lower Initial Condition Factors

Following Release into the LSR

Figure B-16: The Condition of Trout in the LSR Became Much More Uniform Than

That Seen at the Time of Release

Figure B-17a: Condition Factor Change for December and January Releases

Figure B-17b: Condition Factor Change for January and March Releases

Figure B-18: Illustrating the Increased Uniformity of Trout Condition Following

Release into the LSR

Figure B-19: There was No Significant Effect of Initial Condition Factor on the

Tendency of Fish to Move Up or Downstream Following Release

Figure B-20: There was No Appreciable Effect of Residency Duration on the

Growth of Fish in the LSR

Length Frequency Distribtuion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Length (in)

Num

ber

RainbowTrout

Brown Trout

Figure B-21: Length Frequency Distribution of All Brown and Rainbow Trout

Collected from the Lower Saluda River, April – June 2003

APPENDIX A-7 SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TROUT … · 2.1 Saluda Project The Saluda Hydro Project...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX A-7 SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TROUT … · 2.1 Saluda Project The Saluda Hydro Project...